Tout le monde à table

A lot of complaints I see have several flaws. But first things I agree with.

1. The host could be somewhat condescending and negative.

2. The countries could have been less predictable.

3. The finale winner was a little questionable, based solely on the prompt being to create a signature dish that takes risks.

4. There should have been more female chefs.

What I don't agree with: 1. Claiming a country as a whole has bad cuisine is incredibly ignorant. Especially when it came to countries like America with an incredibly diverse roster of dishes that originated there. Every country has good food and talented chefs.

2. Criticizing use of celebrity judges while ignoring the fact they were always paired with a food critic is dense. They have taste buds too, and can make relevant cultural commentary. Only a final table chef actually made the decision to send anyone home anyways.

3. Anyone who knows anything about the chefs on the final table would tell you how laughable it is to think they were somehow involved in a plot to pick a predetermined winner.

I would love a season 2, with a whole new list of countries and contestants.

I won't go to deep into the whole show. I like food. Novelle cuisine or street food. Doesn't matter. What bothers me most about the show is that the jury are people who have nothing to do with food except one food critique. Still no chef involved. The chefs in the show are top notch chefs with awards and reputations. They participate in one of the biggest cooking shows ever, and the get criticized by models, singers, actors...WHAT. I found that for the most part they had no culinary sense. That's fine but a bit misplaced in a show like that. They decide who gets to go to the next round and who has to cook for high class chef. The arrangement didn't do it for me. I watched it cause i liked what those chefs do. Definitely culinary art. I personally didn't like the decision making process. At all.

Overall the entertainment of the show was good. But there are certain flaws: 1. How do food critics or film celebrities qualify as judges ? Does a Food critic is same as a chef ? They should have explained their food knowledge background to justify standing in that position. 2. Chefs partnered as a team split into individuals in the finale. How does this justify that assumption of both partners were equally good until that point and that the other person was in the finale not because of his team mate? 3. The finale was flawed. The audience was never clearly explained on what parameters the culinary legendary chefs are going to decide the winner. There was no rating system. I mean how do you expect 9 judges to have a consensus on the winner without a rating scale? Judgement was questionable in few episodes but the announcement of the winner caught me totally off guard. Now I doubt the show, was the winner already decided by the show makers ?

I found it amazing how the chefs utilized their own countries with the country presented.The calibre of the chefs,the variety of talent.I enjoyed the variety of judges. As the competition continued i could feel the tension build.Thoroughly enjoyed

It has the best of masterchef but without the soap opera that accompanies it. It is a real cooking competition where the judges are some of the best chefs in the world. It's a spectacular culinary journey across the world, but, the final is a farce and the least deserved winner in recent times.

It seems that they ignore that in the course the one who has the best cooking and the most technique should win and they change it to the one who should win. Very disappointing ending and not in keeping with the rest of the program.